In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg, and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboatintended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to belightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in thissitua±on was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an ac±on, hereasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. Ifhe did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could havesaved. Some people opposed the captain’s decision. They claimed that if nothing were done andeveryone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, ifthe captain a²empted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deathswould be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and le³ng all die. Thecaptain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great eForts ofrowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacri´ced. In this situa±on itwould be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As itturned out, aµer days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried forhis ac±on. 1. Did the captain make the right decision? Why or why not?
2. What other choices could the captain have made?
3. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? Why?
4. Which ethical theory or theories could be applied here? How?